Search
Schumer: No more SCOTUS nominees
Shorter Schumer: "January 20th, 2009, is here".
From Politico:
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.â€
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,†Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.â€
A very timely reminder to an Imperial White House run amok about the powers of Congress, one would think; and one would be right in thinking so. The republican minority in Congress and their discredited figurehead in the White House have already obstructed as much as they could of the Democratic agenda the voters endorsed in November; fine, Democrats control the committees, and 'advise and consent' doesn't mean 'a free pass for every rightwing ideologue that comes down the turnpike'.
There's a showdown happening between the White House and Congress, the Imperial Unitary Executive and the People's House. It's time for Congress to go on the offensive, and use all means at its disposal to block the Bush agenda.
Bravo, Senator.
Well, it's an improvement, but
1) Where was Senator Schumer when Democrats caved on the Alito and Roberts nominations in the first place? He did not filibuster them (or did I sleep through that?).
2) By omission, I am concerned that Mr. Schumer may not be as critical of lower court nominees sent through the process by that legal paragon Mr. Gonzales and his White House bosses? By mentioning only Supreme Court nominations, does Mr. Schumer intend to green light right-wing nominees for District Courts and Appeals panels?
Daniel...
...Schumer voted against both Roberts and Alito. I was involved in that fight, and he was front and center in it.
I don't disagree that the lower courts are a concern as well, but you're trying a little too hard to find the fly in the ointment here. That's really unfortunate. There is no indication that Schumer "greenlights" wingnuts.
If no new vacancies occur
If no new vacancies occur until the latter part of the next term - by mid-Spring 2008 - Schumer can probably get away with this strategy. If, however, either Stevens or Ginsburg need to step down before then, it will be difficult to sustain a long-term vacancy, especially if Bush nominates someone who, while less liberal than S and G, are more moderate than Roberts and Alito. (Bush being Bush, however, he will fortunately resist this temptation, in which case the reason for any confirmation gridlock will fall on his shoulders.)
The good news here is that the four more liberal members of the court seem especially determined to resist the rightward shift and stay on for the long run. The high level quality and intensity of their dissents in the major 5-4 losses should serve as rallying points for the liberal community in the upcomming election.
I was also encouraged when I viewed C-SPAN's America and the Courts last night and saw an especially lucid and articulate 87 year old Justice Stevens hold court at a recent Circuit Court conference. He certainly seems determined - and able - to keep up the good fight as long as he can.